On Jun 1, 4:57 pm, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello Sage team,
Hi Georg,
> great work so far, keep pushing forward!
> I've got the following question:
>
> Does a new SPKG, whose contents are licensed under GPLv3+ ("three
> plus"),
> fulfil your license requirement in order to become part of the Sage
> core?
As William already mentioned the answer is generally "no".
> In your Wiki (http://www.sagemath.org:9001/spkg/InclusionProcedure?
> highlight=%28SPKG%29)
> you say "GPL version 2+ compatible license.", regarding e.g. JSAGE you
> say
> (http://www.sagemath.org/jsage/guidelines.html):
> "License: All software that is published in JSAGE must be licensed
> under
> a "GPL v2 or later"-compatible license.".
>
> By "GPLv3+" I mean licensed using the usual catchphrase:
> "The xyzprog is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.",
> referring to the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007".
> (And analogously "GPLv2+", referring to GPL "Version 2, June 1991";
> LGPL is the "Lesser" version of a GPL licence.)
>
> GPLv3+ is more restrictive than GPLv2+, both in theory and in
> practice,
> so my question above is not so innocent as it might seem at first.
Correct.
> Parts of the current SAGE v3.0.2 are licensed (L)GPLv3+, and there is
> the SAGE motto:
>
> "Building the car instead of reinventing the wheel".
>
> This would lead to a strong assumption that the answer to my question
> above is "Yes" anyway.
Any of the [L]GPL V3+ components currently in Sage can be replaced by
[L]GPL V2+ componets quickly, i.e.
* GMP by using GMP 4.2.1
* GSL by using GSL 1.9
* GNUTLS and friends by using either OpenSSL or a previous GPL 2+
release of GNUTLS. [I will spare you the version numbers of GNUTLS and
its dependencies here]
I can do the above replacements in roughly 15 minutes from scratch.
Once you do that you still cannot have a GPL V2 binary of Sage since
the some graph planarity code is currently Apache2 licensed, which is
only GPL 3 compatible. Once that obstacle is removed [and we are
working on it] you can have a GPL V2 only binary of Sage and all of
Sage will truly be GPL V2 or GPL V3 compatible again. The reason that
it is GPL V2 or V3 is due to Singular being GPL V2 or V3.
I hope the above explains why we currently require GPL V2+
compatibility for potential new core spkgs despite the seemingly
contradiction of having [L]GPL V3+ components in Sage 3.0.2.
> However, the fine distinction between (L)GPLv2+ and (L)GPLv3+ was
> one of the keypoints in the recent (ongoing?) generation-conflict
> flamewar
> on the mailing-list "gmp-discuss", an outtake from the middle of which
> was posted in the Sage Project Blog
> (see "http://planet.sagemath.org/";, entry from May 29th).
Yes.
> I do not want to discuss this here, I just want clarity
> about the Sage team's policy regarding the future inclusion of
> GPLv3+'ed code into the mainline Sage core.
> (Say explicitly extending ".../sage/modular/modsym/").
>
> If there's a quick answer, good.
> (I might have been missing something, please just tell me, thanks!)
> If your answer takes some time, that's OK for me, too.
>
> Zum Wohl!
I rarely drink before 5PM ;)
> gsw
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
